The Collapse of the WTC on 9/11: The Melting of Steel Components Refuted

The collapse of the WTC

by Kevin RyanUnderwriters LaboratoriesThursday, Nov 11, 2004

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team’s report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing – that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team’s August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to “rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse.” The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to “soften and buckle.” (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that “most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C.” To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I’ve copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

Unit Plans Closed Hearings on Collapse of the Towers

November 12, 2004 By JIM DWYER

New York Times

The federal agency investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center said this week that some of its deliberations would take place in secret, including discussions on possible changes to national building codes and standards.

The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public.

For more than two years, the agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has been studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. A draft of its final report is due in January.

In an e-mail notice sent earlier this week, the institute said that its construction advisory committee, a group of experts overseeing the investigation, would meet for 10 hours on Nov. 22 at its headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., but that only the first 2 hours would be public.

The remainder will be closed because of the agency’s concerns that discussions about changes in construction codes could prematurely influence the building industry and the people who write the codes, said Mat Heyman, the institute’s chief of staff.

Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Richard was killed when the south tower collapsed 57 minutes after it was hit by one of the hijacked jets, vehemently objected to the decision.

“You have one job, and one job only – to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it,” she said yesterday in an interview. “You don’t owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public – the truth, no matter where it goes.”

The investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Ms. Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, a firefighter who died. A lawyer for the campaign, Norman Siegel, said he was studying the possibility of a lawsuit.

While the investigation has not received anything like the wide public attention given to the 9/11 commission, the agency’s work has been closely followed by the building and real estate industries, and by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The agency does not have the power to enact new codes, but its findings on design issues – including the number of escape staircases needed in skyscrapers, the strength of the materials, the quality of fireproofing – are expected to influence structural requirements for new buildings.

“There has been considerable pressure on us to come out with our final recommendations,” Mr. Heyman said. “We do not want in any way, shape or form to influence any recommendations until they at least have had the benefit of advisory committee review.”

Mr. Heyman said the agency has been aggressive about sharing information with the public throughout the investigation. Thousands of pages of documents have already been published on its Internet site. He said draft proposals would be issued for public comment before the final report is written.

Ms. Regenhard said it was not clear how the agency had reached some of the findings it has already released. “We have had no access to the process by which those conclusions are reached,” she said.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.